Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040013582025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : CRP/86/2025 Dr Mai Kuru Camder Son of Late Mai Tar, presently residing at NERIST Complex, PO and PS Nirjuli, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Mrs Toko Yajur Wife of Dr Mai Kuru Camder, resident of Nirjuli, PO and PS Nirjuli, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : Dicky Panging, Sr. Adv, Chatung Tajo,Tokge Darin,Doge Lona,Marge Doji,Daina Tamuk Advocate for the Respondent : Khoda Tama, Tasso Dodung,Khoda Yubey,Jambey Tsering,T Lampung,Hinti Jeram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 13-05-2026 Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. C. Tajo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms H. Jerang, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The instant application under Section 227 of the Constitution of India Page No.# 2/4 has been filed assailing the impugned decision dated 11.08.2025 passed by the 2(two) Head Gaon Burahs and one Neelam Kaku of different villages wherein, in a marriage dispute between the parties, it was provided that if the petitioner’s family fails to terminate the relationship between the petitioner and Miss Yumri Riram, the family of the respondent would be at liberty to take their own course of action as deemed appropriate. 3. The brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner is that pursuant to a marital dispute between the petitioner and the sole respondent i.e. Mrs. Toko Yajur, a meeting was proposed to be held on 19.07.2025 at the residence of the petitioner at Mai village between the family members and relatives of both the parties. Accordingly, on 19.07.2025, the family members of the sole respondent came to the house of the petitioner at Mai village accompanied by one Nabam Bida, Head Gaon Burah of Yachuli village, Neelam Kaku, Gaon Burah of Yachuli village and one Toko Sipal, Head Gaon Burah of Talo village. It is stated that the aforementioned Head Gaon Burahs are from different village authorities of different villages and not of Mai village of which both the parties are permanent residents. It is contended that on being questioned about their presence, the petitioner was told that they were present just to help resolve the issue. Accordingly, the meeting went ahead on 19.07.2025 and the sole respondent’s family members and relatives demanded that the petitioner must stop his relationship with aforementioned Miss Yumri Riram, which the petitioner refused and finally no solution could be arrived at and it is was decided that another meeting should be held after a period of 15(fifteen) days. It was contended that the petitioner on the Page No.# 3/4 basis of the meeting held on 19.07.2025, was expecting another meeting to be held, however, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, the petitioner received a copy of decision dated 11.08.2025 purportedly passed by aforesaid 3(three) judges, namely, one Nabam Bida, Head Gaon Burah of Yachuli village, Neelam Kaku, Gaon Burah of Yachuli village and one Toko Sipal, Head Gaon Burah of Talo village, wherein, it was provided that if the petitioner’s family fails to terminate the relationship between the petitioner and Miss Yumri Riram by 03.08.2025, the family of the respondent would be at liberty to take their own course of action as deemed appropriate. It is contended by the petitioner that the impugned decision dated 11.08.2025, passed by members of village authorities of different villages suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant civil revision petition. 4. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel Ms H. Jerang, appearing for the sole respondent has submitted that she concedes that the aforesaid impugned decision dated 11.08.2025 was passed by the aforesaid village authorities without having any jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid, she fairly submits that since the impugned order was passed without having jurisdiction, the impugned decision dated 11.08.2025 may be set aside and quashed. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission and specific consent of the learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent, the instant civil revision petition is allowed on consent by the parties and thereby, the impugned order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the 3(three) judges, namely, one Nabam Bida, Head Gaon Burah of Yachuli village, Neelam Kaku, Gaon Page No.# 4/4 Burah of Yachuli village and one Toko Sipal, Head Gaon Burah of Talo village, is set aside and quashed. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant civil revision petition is allowed on consent and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant